Talk:Sito Jaxa (Sutherland)
Again, I am getting an article flagged for copyediting without any explanation as to why. Communications between administrators and contributors have to improve. I am not Vulcan or Betazoid--I do not read minds. If you're going to flag an article for copyediting or deletion, you need to explain why--don't just arbitrarily decide you're going to do it because you can--especially if it has been up for over'four months' without any other administrators seeming to have a problem. So, tell me what you want and I'll do it--but please, start improving communications!--David Falkayn 21:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)David Falkayn :David, first off, if you look at the article's history, this tag has only been up for a week. It's bloody holiday time, and even if it weren't, sometimes copyedit tags get thrown up and then go unnoticed for a while, unless someone checks Category:Pages marked for copyediting. That doesn't happen as often as it should, because there are frequently "bigger fish to fry" and a lot of brushfires to put out. Especially since there are really only two active admins at the moment, and a lot demands their attention. It's not solely up to the administrators to attend to these things, however. The wiki needs more contributors who'll look beyond their own material and start improving the general community. But I digress. Regardless, the tag has only been up for a week. You need to chill. :Secondly, there are two things that immediately jump out at me. The first, which should be obvious, is a near-total lack of wikification. I've wikified the introductory paragraph as an example. The second thing I would suggest is to look for run-on sentences, of which there are several. The primary one is, indeed, your introductory paragraph. I like the fact that you don't start off with the standard "Lt. Sito Jaxa is..." opening, but after "2373," the sentence becomes confused and repetitive: ::"after being certified"..."following a lengthy recovery"..."following her capture as the result of her participation..." :See what I mean? It's overly-wordy, repetitive and muddled. Try simplifying it, and then look for any similar instances where grammar can be improved throughout the article. If you don't want to do it yourself, someone else will eventually get around to it. :But we're not here to teach anyone High School grammar. --TimPendragon 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC) : Young man, I am a university professor and work on the editorial staff of The Historian, an academic journal--I edit on a regular basis Ph.Ds and other scholars and also have works of my own in publication, so do not lecture me about grammar and sentence structure. I have forgotten more about English grammar than you are likely to ever remember. You have an obligation to take a few minutes of your time to explain where problems might be so that we can correct them. Sometimes stuff does slip out and mistakes are made, I am after all only human. If you are unable to do that, then put on more admins--it's not rocket science. I will be more than happy to review my work and make the necessary corrections, but don't you dare patronize me. Also, because you do have a fair point in that we contributors should do more to help the general community, I will put more effort into helping out beyond my own material.--David Falkayn 03:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)David Falkayn ::In an environment such as this, how am I, or anyone, to know from what background you come? Your editing here doesn't indicate one way or the other. And frankly, Professor (if you truly are), I don't care if you're Steven King, Tom Clancy or the ghost of Charles Dickens. You should be capable of proofreading your own article, especially if you come from such a background, and especially if it's been pointed out that something was amiss. ::Per your request, I explained a few of the things I saw. Attend to them or not. Either way, there's no need to go flying off the handle first at and then me. And just so we're clear: I am not an admin, merely a humble contributor such as yourself...though humble appears to be relative. --TimPendragon 03:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)